The Straight Dope 12/17/2004

The Straight Dope -- By Cecil Adams
http://www.straightdope.com

You are subscribed as: [[email protected]]

To unsubscribe CLICK on the URL below this line:
mailto:[email protected]
If you can't "click" above, then send a blank email to:
[email protected]
____________________________________________
THE STRAIGHT DOPE 12/17/2004

Dear Cecil:

To hear a lot of people tell it, up until some indeterminate date in the
20th century, everyone in Europe and the United States stank to high
heaven. Supposedly no one washed, brushed their teeth, etc; everyone had
lice; and so on. Is it true that the average 12th-century European, if
he showed up in a modern room, could clear out the joint by stench alone
in three seconds? Were lice the social norm? Would everyone's
rotting-tooth breath knock us on our asses? If so, at what point did
matters improve? I'm imagining myself transported back in time to a room
where the Founding Fathers are debating what to do about the Crown's
injustices, and almost passing out from the stink. What makes me
skeptical that hygiene was so awful is that I often read of someone
being particularly malodorous; if everything already stank horrifically,
then how could people tell that someone had BO? Who had grounds to
nitpick anyone else's pungency? --Jonathan, via e-mail

~~~~~~
Looking for the perfect gift for that wedding, birthday, or
bar mitzvah? Straight Dope books are the very thing! See
http://www.straightdope.com/store.html
~~~~~~

Cecil replies:

Come on, Jonathan--a little body odor never killed anybody. Truth is, we
live in an impoverished age, olfactorily speaking. Up until, say, World
War I--some would put the date as late as 1950--human beings lived in a
rich stew of scents, some revolting but a few delightful and many at
least comfortingly familiar. Nowadays people in the developed world can
go for days without sniffing anything more pungent than kung pao chicken
at the food court. Progress has rid us of some pretty rank smells, but
we tossed out some good ones too.    

For more, see:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/041217.html

STRAIGHT DOPE CLASSIC #1 - 03/07/1986

Dear Straight Dope:

Who decided, back in the mists of time, that red was the color for
"stop" and green the color for "go"?  The commonest form of color
blindness makes the colors totally useless. A warning sign that is
near-invisible to a significant portion of the population strikes me as
a bad idea. -- Barbara T., Los Angeles  

Cecil replies:  

Well, now's a fine time to mention it, Barb. Why didn't you bring this up
80 years ago?  The present system of color coding was developed by the
railroads around the time of World War I. But its roots go back much further.
Tradition among railroaders has it that red was chosen for "stop" in
commemoration of a farmer who tried to flag down an early choo-choo with
his red shirt. This is cute, but BS. Red, the color of blood, has been a
danger signal since time immemorial. It's said the Roman legions bore
the red banner of the war god Mars into battle 2,000 years ago. 

For more, see: 
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_152.html

STRAIGHT DOPE CLASSIC #2 - 03/07/1986

Dear Cecil: 

I hate to see you wasting your time on the insipid questions your
readers have been submitting lately. Permit me to pose a question that
will have a meaningful impact on today's social problems: Why do clocks
that have Roman numerals on the faces always show the number four as
IIII instead of IV? --Jerry M., Hollywood, California  

Dear Jerry: 

Finally, somebody with a sense of perspective.  I hate to be a wimp
about these things, but I'm going to have to fall back on that old
standby: They do it that way because that's the way they've always done
it, at least as far back as 1550, and probably earlier. Many clock
historians claim that IIII is supposed to provide artistic balance,
since you mentally pair it off with VIII on the other side of the dial.
(Presumably you see how the otherwise economical IV would have trouble
holding its own in this respect.) The only problem with this theory is
that the Romans apparently never used IV--it's a relatively modern
invention. It's possible, in other words, that old-time clock makers
used IIII because it was considered perfectly proper usage for all
purposes, horological or otherwise, at the time. 

For more, see:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_153.html

____________________________________________
Here's how you can get your OWN FREE Subscription:
Send a blank mailto:[email protected]
____________________________________________
Copyright 1995 - 2004 Chicago Reader, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
You may forward this document by email ONLY if you
include the entire document INCLUDING the information
at the bottom of this publication
____________________________________________
Visit our good friends at Joke A Day http://www.jokeaday.com
They're kind enough to mail THE STRAIGHT DOPE for us.
Join the World's Largest Daily Humor List and receive daily
laughs in your email by sending mailto:[email protected]